harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Accepted? with what alternative? "This is what you get..lump it - but just don't get any ideas that we are the same cos we ain't, we are different and you don't get what we get. We even went to the further trouble of creating a nice little pigeon hole we could stuff you in". The irony is the "hole" isn't a new concept. Maybe this is how you see things. I will use the maligned phrase again, equal but different for different groups of people. The homosexual people I feel sorry for in all this are those with a religious belief and see some same sex couples being able to marry in church when they can't. As I said earlier I think the government have dodged the complete issue. The European Court will eventually decide it is discriminatory for some churches to marry same sex couples and not others. Our government will then have achieved its desired result without confrontong the churches and say they never wished this conclusion. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 14:16 ---------- Accepted because they had no other choice. If they had chosen it over marriage you might have a point, but they couldn't and didn't choose it, it was imposed. But the fact is marriage was not an option as they did not qualify for it. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 14:06 ---------- We established in another thread long ago that marriage is not and should not be restricted to couples who can reproduce, so why do you think repeating it now will help your point? Because RootsBooster keeps demanding an answer and this is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Exactly. Whilst it is correct to say that we are all guilty, or have been guilty, of prejudices, what we are talking about is state prejudice. Together, using reason, we should strive to eradicate state prejudices. I agree we all have our prejudices..but once we allow them to spill over into mainstream via action they become dangerous. If you hate a Black or a homosexual keep it between your ears. We can't control thought..and nor should we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 The homosexual people I feel sorry for in all this are those with a religious belief and see some same sex couples being able to marry in church when they can't. Why feel sorry for them? The law will be changed. Feel happy for them. They can finally have what they desire. My conclusion is that I have based my arguments on facts. A conclusion isn't a "fact". It is part of an argument. For example: The wall is 8 feet tall. (Premise = Fact) You have no arms. (Premise = Fact) Thus, you won't be able to climb over the wall. (Conclusion = Opinion) You don't even understand the words you are using harvey, and then wonder why nobody is agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 As I said earlier I think the government have dodged the complete issue. The European Court will eventually decide it is discriminatory for some churches to marry same sex couples and not others. Our government will then have achieved its desired result without confrontong the churches and say they never wished this conclusion. Six EU countries have same sex marriages - from as long ago as 2001. Have churches in any of these countries been forced to perform same sex marriages against their wishes? If not, why do you think churches in this country would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Why feel sorry for them? The law will be changed. Feel happy for them. They can finally have what they desire. Chris you have completely misrepresented what I said. I said I felt sorry for those who couldn't marry in their church because it had opted out whilst they saw others marrying in churches which had opted in. A conclusion isn't a "fact". It is part of an argument. For example: The wall is 8 feet tall. (Premise = Fact) You have no arms. (Premise = Fact) Thus, you won't be able to climb over the wall. (Conclusion = Opinion) You don't even understand the words you are using harvey, and then wonder why nobody is agreeing with you. I do understand the words I use(GCE O level English language) The conclusion was my conclusion and not the conclusion of the debate. Did you buy your grandfather the book I recommended for him ? ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 14:53 ---------- Six EU countries have same sex marriages - from as long ago as 2001. Have churches in any of these countries been forced to perform same sex marriages against their wishes? If not, why do you think churches in this country would? I don't know if anyone in any of the 6 countries has brought a case of discrimination before the court, but would think a case would be upheld if brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I do understand the words I use. Forgive me. It looked like you were struggling and talking nonsense. Exactly what happened last time you tackled this subject. Still ... an O-Level, eh? Did you buy your grandfather the book I recommended for him ? My grandfather is virtually blind. He'd be hard pressed to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Here I randomly selected page 11 (makes you an ignorant homophobe, )( you are also a bigot.( Please close my account mods.) This was because of the insults this member had to endure,( Stop being such a drama queen.) The problem you have here MrSmith is that the comments made by the poster you claim was insulted that elicited the responses you quote were indeed both bigoted and homophobic and I give two examples below - fair enough if gay couples want to do their thing but i don't think it should be accepted as the norm... As for homosexuality, do i find it disgusting ? to some point yes Yes the poster concerned stated that he does not treat homosexuals in a derogatory manner but discriminatory behaviour and hate crimes are an expression of bigotry and homophobia which is born in the mind. Inaction is no defence, to think it is to be it. If you read my posts you would see that it was the ability to reproduce(and please don't start using the medically exempt or old to rubbish my point) that created the difference between a hetrosexual and homosexual couple. How is that different from saying please don't point out the massive and obvious flaw in my reasoning to rubbish my point? I think you have grasped the point, equal but different. The problem with the slippery and disingenuous equal but different defence, Harvey, is that in the case of same-sex marriage equal has a point and a practical purpose different does not. I'll ask again as you failed to answer the last time - can you show me the practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage? If you can I'll happily consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 My grandfather is virtually blind. He'd be hard pressed to understand it. Sorry to hear that I thought the book would have been very interesting and brought back a lot of memories for him after you spoke of his recollections. (Do you think I've won the debate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 What is the point of having religions if the government can overrule them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Do you understand the difference between causing and taking? I've seen ample evidence of the latter and precious little of the former. Prove me wrong if you can by telling me and everyone else what number post. Yes, one takes offence when someone does, says or writes something they deem offensive. Someone causes offence when they do, say or write something that causes offence. It is possible to cause offence unintentionally by doing, saying or writing something that you didn’t think would be offensive and in those situation it is customary to apologise for causing offence, if no apology is forthcoming then it’s likely the person causing offence did it intentionally, if they continue doing that which caused offence then they are being deliberately offensive. Example, my friend is fat; he contains a large amount of fat so he is by definition fatty, if I call him fatty in jest and he takes offence then I would apologise because it wasn’t my intension to offend him, I would then refrain from calling him fatty in the future, clearly most sensible people wouldn’t call him fatty in the first place because most sensible people would know that it would be offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.